re: depth at lb......could it equate to situational 3-4 on some downs?(Posted by Specktricity on 3/21/13 at 9:10 pm to sportsfan)

I don't think we had 4 lbs ready to play at the time. That's not the point though, I just think Chavis is not as committed to the 4-3 as much as people think. He just wants to get the best playmakers on the field. Depending on the opponent of course.

re: depth at lb......could it equate to situational 3-4 on some downs?(Posted by sportsfan on 3/21/13 at 9:32 pm to ForeLSU)

Agree there, you don't recruit 43 DL and LBs and expect them to fit in a 3-4 scheme. It's two totally different styles of defense. Now, is it possible we see situations where 4 LBs get on the field at one time...maybe. But it will be a small package and situational only, if at all.

re: depth at lb......could it equate to situational 3-4 on some downs?(Posted by ATLTiger on 3/21/13 at 9:47 pm to sportsfan)

quote:Did we ever have 4 LBs in the game at one time against aTm?

I'm about 1000% sure we didn't. the only time we may - and I'm stressing MAY - have had 4 LBs at once was back in 09 when Chavis would sometimes put Shep or Riley at DE. had to try something with Pep getting 0 sacks as a starter at DE all yr (seriously, how is that possible?)

re: depth at lb......could it equate to situational 3-4 on some downs?(Posted by koLSU86 on 3/22/13 at 4:16 am to sportsfan)

quote:Seems like this has been discussed at length before.

Several times. We've been a 4-3 team for years and yet people still continue to talk about situational 3-4. I don't get what people think you're going to get out of it. I don't get the questioning of d-line depth either honestly. We won't really know how good or deep the line goes till the season starts.